4th Edition D&D discussion thread [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition D&D discussion thread

Subotai

08-15-2007, 06:49 PM

Start saving your bucks

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/playdnd

Perry Holley

08-15-2007, 07:10 PM

So is this leading to an announcement for 4th edition D&D, or something else that I'm not smart enough to figure out?

Robotech Master

08-15-2007, 07:34 PM

The only thing I know of that's happening in 20 hours is Gencon, which is definitely related to tabletop gaming, but I'm not sure what 4Dventure is referring to.

Perry Holley

08-15-2007, 07:46 PM

Well, if they are planning on doing 4e D&D, then Gencon would definately be the place for them to announce it.

marionde

08-15-2007, 08:44 PM

Its been almost 100% confirmed to be 4E.

Here's a link to a screenie from WOTC's forums. Looks like they are getting ready for the post-annoucement rush.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3702448&postcount=217

Perry Holley

08-16-2007, 05:56 AM

Jmacq1

08-16-2007, 06:19 AM

Heh, that's funny. They've been denying for months that 4th Edition was in the works. Or at least that it was going to arrive anytime soon.

JeffreyWKramer

08-16-2007, 07:28 AM

After being a DnD player since back when it was a couple of softcover books, I gave up on purchasing any further DnD products when they jumped so quickly from 3 to 3.5 and started reprinting books they'd released only a year or so earlier. There are plenty of old versions of the game readily available now, all perfectly enjoyable, and I sincerely hope players stop buying these constant reboots. It serves only to rack in bucks for WotC, but is damaging to the RPG hobby.

Kage Kisaragi

08-16-2007, 10:29 AM

if this is some kind of announcement for 4th edition you can count me out. I will not buy anymore DnD books ever.

JeffreyWKramer

08-16-2007, 10:44 AM

Heh, that's funny. They've been denying for months that 4th Edition was in the works. Or at least that it was going to arrive anytime soon.

That one's right up there with "The check is in the mail" and "I promise, honey, I'll pull out on time."

Jmacq1

08-16-2007, 11:33 AM

if this is some kind of announcement for 4th edition you can count me out. I will not buy anymore DnD books ever.

I dunno if I'd go that far, but I'll be curious to see how compatible the pile of 3.5 stuff I already have is with it.

For some reason, I'm betting that they're going to switch over to something that more closely resembles the D20 Modern system. That's the direction they went with the new Star Wars RPG that came out this year. And just like the Star Wars "revised" edition pointed towards some of the things they changed in 3.5, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the new "Saga" edition pointed towards what they want to do in 4th Edition.

Kage Kisaragi

08-16-2007, 11:51 AM

JeffreyWKramer

08-16-2007, 01:43 PM

I dunno if I'd go that far, but I'll be curious to see how compatible the pile of 3.5 stuff I already have is with it.

For some reason, I'm betting that they're going to switch over to something that more closely resembles the D20 Modern system. That's the direction they went with the new Star Wars RPG that came out this year. And just like the Star Wars "revised" edition pointed towards some of the things they changed in 3.5, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the new "Saga" edition pointed towards what they want to do in 4th Edition.

And this planned obselescence of game systems only a couple years old is completely planned, and completely intentional, to keep people buying essentially the same product over and over.

Jmacq1

08-16-2007, 01:45 PM

But its all to much to soon. How long has 3.5 been out? I started playing in 2000 roughly, it can't be that long. Even if its some what compatible I find this kind of inconviencing. I mean for them to call it a new edition then it must be a massive overhaul to how the game is already played which will probably make most of the suppliments up until now worthless and usable.

Well, if they do the D20 Modern route, it's really only character creation that's significantly different. And even then, it's not so much in terms of stats as opposed to simply customization options. Still, the basic "stats" generally remain the same and the mechanics are all pretty much identical save for minor tweaks here and there.

And no matter what rule-changes go into effect, the "fluff" is always still good. But beyond that, I've learned over the years that sometimes...enough is indeed enough. There's TONS of 3.5 material out there, and it'll all still be available for years to come in some form or another. So you're absolutely right in that there's little reason to buy into a 4th edition unless you're dissatisfied with the rules they have now.

Which is what seems funny about all this to me: Why put out a 4th edition when there's such a massive amount of product available for 3.5, and you can still make money off of your back catalog of products for that edition?

There just doesn't seem to be any need for a 4th edition right now. Which is why I'm kinda taking this with a grain of salt until an official announcement is made.

Jmacq1

08-16-2007, 01:49 PM

And this planned obselescence of game systems only a couple years old is completely planned, and completely intentional, to keep people buying essentially the same product over and over.

Well of course. It's only natural they'd take their cue from the computer and video game console business. :)

Beyond that...they -are- still a business that exists to make money. I can't think of a ton offhand that they can really do with 3.5 in the way of "new" stuff that hasn't already been done in some form or another.

I can, however, see 4th Edition turning into a huge bomb. Unless its' revisions are the best thing since sliced bread, there's little reason for folks to "upgrade." Not to mention completely disrupting the whole OGL aspect of things, so there's unlikely to be a stoppage of 3.5 edition product from other publishers. It just kinda seems like WotC will be shooting itself in the foot with this.

I mean, at least with Star Wars they took a couple years off from any RPG products before coming out with a new edition.

Jmacq1

08-16-2007, 03:25 PM

Ah...apparently it has been officially announced, and is coming in May 2008.

And apparently the whole point is to unshackle WotC from the OGL. So basically 4E won't have an OGL. So the third party publishers will still be producing plenty of material for 3.5E, and Wizards is setting themselves up for massive failure.

Good to know.

Perry Holley

08-16-2007, 04:01 PM

if this is some kind of announcement for 4th edition you can count me out. I will not buy anymore DnD books ever.I don't know if I'll never buy a copy, but I definately won't be picking it up blindly when it's released. At the very least, I'll wait until I can get some playtest reviews, and more likely wait until a 2nd printing (as the first printing will undoubtedly have a truckload of errors and typos in it) to pick up a copy.

G. Wayne

08-16-2007, 05:51 PM

Hmph. Sucks to that. This is one of the big things that killed 40K and the like for me. Haven't heard a thing about this from the RPG fanatic friends of mine yet.

Ah...apparently it has been officially announced, and is coming in May 2008.

And apparently the whole point is to unshackle WotC from the OGL. So basically 4E won't have an OGL. So the third party publishers will still be producing plenty of material for 3.5E, and Wizards is setting themselves up for massive failure.

Good to know.

What praytell is "OGL"?

Jmacq1

08-16-2007, 06:09 PM

OGL is the "Open Gaming License." It's the agreement that allows pretty much any publisher to use the D&D 3.5 rules to produce supplements and books of their own. And to use said rules as a baseline to modify into their own tweaked rulesets.

For lack of a better way to describe it, it makes the basic D&D 3.5 (also known as the "d20" rules) "public domain." It's the reason that there's been a huge explosion in the amount of product available in the RPG market in the past several years. And the reason that d20 rules have been adapted to almost every type of genre and licensed property imaginable.

The problem (from WotC's point of view) is that it's fuelled their own competition, as other companies have come out with games and settings that rival their own in-house settings. And the way the agreement is written, it never becomes null and void. These publishers can produce material with the 3.5 edition rules until the stars burn out, if they want, and Wizards of the Coast can't do a thing about it.

So the only way for Wizards of the Coast to "escape" is to create a new edition of the game, -not- make the rules open to all, and revamp all their in-house settings to follow those rules.

lonewolf23k

08-16-2007, 09:34 PM

The first official previews of D&D 4e can be seen and heard here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=welcome/conventions/gencon07

Gezora

08-17-2007, 03:59 AM

Didn't 3.5 just finish being.... finished!?

Who the hell does WOTC think they are? Upper Deck!?

........

Gamestore clerk humor, folks.

Work with me here.

Kage Kisaragi

08-17-2007, 08:07 AM

I'm gonna try and restrain myself and just see what the hell they are up to.

Shellhead

08-17-2007, 09:06 AM

WotC is in a tough spot. The OGL on 3.0/3.5 enabled them to sell vast numbers of the core books, but also put all of their own supplements in competition with a flood of other products. And they got a huge boost from the Lord of the Rings movies. But in order to move forward with new products that people will buy, WotC must do this 4.0 version. Problem is, there is zero demand for D&D 4.0. Comparisons to Microsoft's Vista will be inevitable.

I'm happy to hear about this. D&D 3.0/3.5 and LotR put a chokehold on RPGs for several years, forcing too many game companies to follow their lead or suffer a big dent in sales. Outstanding games like Legend of the Five Rings and Call of Cthulhu dropped their own decent game systems to awkwardly retrofit into D&D rules, losing what made them special in the first place. Maybe now other games will finally have the chance to get played.

Either way, it's too late for me. Console games, CCGs, larps, collectible miniatures games, boardgames and PC games have all taken big bites out of the fanbase that might play tabletop RPGs. And tabletop RPGs are a very time-consuming and unreliable form of entertainment, where a single disruptive player or unprepared DM can ruin an entire afternoon or evening. I have several boxes of RPGs gathering dust these days, including a few games that I never got around to playing (The Dying Earth, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Feng Shui) because so many friends were just obsessed with D&D and LotR. Now I'm burned out and may not bother playing RPGs again for years. No way I'm going to bother with D&D 4.0.

Shellhead

08-17-2007, 01:21 PM

JeffreyWKramer

08-17-2007, 01:34 PM

Playing 3.5, or really any edition of D&D, as a tabletop RPG is a lumbering exercise in rules-speak.The rules usually destroy any atmosphere that the DM is trying to establish.

Rules can do that, but they don't have to. Especially when everyone more or less knows the rules; they don't get in the way that much then.

Unfortunately, this is a hard state to achieve when the rules keep changing all the times.

Case in point, a quote from one of the last tabletop RPG sessions in which I played (very early DnD 3.5) - "I think my wizard wants to use speed (or haste, or whatever), but first... what does and doesn't that spell do *this* week?"

G. Wayne

08-17-2007, 03:46 PM

...
Either way, it's too late for me. Console games, CCGs, larps, collectible miniatures games, boardgames and PC games have all taken big bites out of the fanbase that might play tabletop RPGs. And tabletop RPGs are a very time-consuming and unreliable form of entertainment, where a single disruptive player or unprepared DM can ruin an entire afternoon or evening. I have several boxes of RPGs gathering dust these days, including a few games that I never got around to playing (The Dying Earth, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Feng Shui) because so many friends were just obsessed with D&D and LotR. ...

You sound like a couple of my friends. They're big fans of trying different or new worlds and systems (Conan, Buffy, Mutants&Masterminds, World of Darkness, Rifts, Exalted, etc, etc.). On the whole, I'm fine with trying something different every now and then, but *my* problem with pulling out new games, at least in our case, was that it took a night to get everyone to generate a character, then we'd go back to that system maybe the next time around, and that was it. At least with the people I game with, as far as I'm concerned, unless all parties involved have some appreciation for the new setting, (like Star Wars compared to Aberrant) it's a waste of time and lost cause to try it.

But hey, I'm sitting on, among others, Wheel of Time, Deadlands and Marvel RPG books too. :)

Shellhead

08-17-2007, 04:05 PM

Rules can do that, but they don't have to. Especially when everyone more or less knows the rules; they don't get in the way that much then.

Unfortunately, this is a hard state to achieve when the rules keep changing all the times.

Case in point, a quote from one of the last tabletop RPG sessions in which I played (very early DnD 3.5) - "I think my wizard wants to use speed (or haste, or whatever), but first... what does and doesn't that spell do *this* week?"

Some RPGs are just less intrusive. The Basic Role-Playing system (BRP) used in most Chaosium games was really easy. All skills were expressed as a percentage chance of success. Combat was initiative in order of Dexterity, a roll to hit, and maybe a roll for defense if the defender tried to parry or dodge the attack. Roll damage if the attack roll succeeds and the defense roll fails. There was more to it than that, but not much more. Hit point totals were realistically low, so players had an incentive to seek alternatives to combat when possible.

And at least one RPG system in my collection encourages role-playing instead of bogging it down: The Dying Earth. Based on the Jack Vance books, this game has the DM writing down quotes from the books or remarks that may prove relevant to the current session, or just funny statements, ideally with that distinctive style that Vance used in his Dying Earth stories. Think fortune cookie message, in terms of length. Players get bonus XP for appropriately saying the messages they draw or are assigned at the start of the session. This adds at least some style to the game, and can be used for foreshadowing or even hints about how to solve problems that arise in the adventure.

Examples: "Cugel, your concepts do you no credit!" or "I fear she is possessed by a demon."

One more cool thing about The Dying Earth rpg is the refreshing of dice pools. Basically, your skill level represents how many times you can re-roll a skill in an attempt to succeed or especially to best another character in some kind of conflict or challenge. Once you have used up all of your dice pool points, you must engage in some specific activity or inactivity to replenish that dice pool. For example, if your combat style is Ferocious and you use up all of your Ferocious combat dice pool, you must spend an entire evening pacing around angrily until you are so pissed off that you are now Ferocious in combat again.

Subotai

08-17-2007, 06:00 PM

Subotai

08-17-2007, 06:01 PM

But just curious - what are people's favourite editions of D&D?

JeffreyWKramer

08-17-2007, 06:14 PM

But just curious - what are people's favourite editions of D&D?

I liked ADnD 2nd Edition until it got bogged down with endless sets of supplemental rules and a lot of really, really poorly-conceived, unbalanced character kits.

I think DnD 3.0 was a very good game, probably superior to all previous versions. If 3.5 had come out first, I'd probably also have been fine with it, but with it coming out and redoing so much stuff just a couple years after 3.0 started, it just pissed me off.

GozertheGozarian

08-17-2007, 06:14 PM

I still play a hybrid of 1st and 2nd editions.

JeffreyWKramer

08-17-2007, 06:16 PM

Some RPGs are just less intrusive. The Basic Role-Playing system (BRP) used in most Chaosium games was really easy. All skills were expressed as a percentage chance of success. Combat was initiative in order of Dexterity, a roll to hit, and maybe a roll for defense if the defender tried to parry or dodge the attack. Roll damage if the attack roll succeeds and the defense roll fails. There was more to it than that, but not much more. Hit point totals were realistically low, so players had an incentive to seek alternatives to combat when possible.

The Chaosium CALL OF CTHULHU ranks very high on my all-time favorite games list, but honestly, that's despite the rules rather than because of them. You're right they weren't particularly intrusive, which is a plus, but the Chaosium/Runequest system was nonetheless always fairly clunky - though it never got in the way of the fun.

Shellhead

08-17-2007, 08:10 PM

I heard that was super-buggy. Glad it had its merits.

It was, but the first two patches fixed nearly everything, plus the designers did an unofficial patch that re-inserted the whorehouse in the evil town. Since then, there have been some impressive fan mods, including one that makes the NPC spellcasters much more effective in combat and also upgrades a number of traps in the game.

My favorite edition for adventures was original AD&D, for great stuff like Tamoachan and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. For actual rules, 3.0 was great. I never actually bought 3.5, so I don't know what it brought to the table.

yeoman

08-17-2007, 08:30 PM

Rules can do that, but they don't have to. Especially when everyone more or less knows the rules; they don't get in the way that much then.

I'd definately agree with this. Having now been part of a campaign that's lasted over three years, early on, the game gets bogged down by rules, with the GM having to house rule stuff that doesn't make sense. After a while of playing the same system, everyone is more or less on the same page.

Combat in 3'5 went very, *very* slow the first few sessions, but, by the end of the first adventure, people more or less got the idea.

Subotai

08-17-2007, 09:30 PM

My favorite edition for adventures was original AD&D, for great stuff like Tamoachan and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. For actual rules, 3.0 was great. I never actually bought 3.5, so I don't know what it brought to the table.

SPOILERS - if you play the current Savage Tide thread in Dungeon Magazine (last issue this month - cue Taps), you wind up visiting both the Shrine of Tamochoan and the Isle of Dread.

Perry Holley

08-18-2007, 06:55 AM

I liked ADnD 2nd Edition until it got bogged down with endless sets of supplemental rules and a lot of really, really poorly-conceived, unbalanced character kits.

I think DnD 3.0 was a very good game, probably superior to all previous versions. If 3.5 had come out first, I'd probably also have been fine with it, but with it coming out and redoing so much stuff just a couple years after 3.0 started, it just pissed me off.Pretty much in agreement with all of this.

These days, I prefer a simpler approach to gaming, which is why I'm using Castles & Crusades instead of any of the D&D editions... it's got most of the options of 1st/2nd ed AD&D, but the complexity is closer to the old Basic/Expert D&D books.

JeffreyWKramer

08-18-2007, 07:00 AM

SPOILERS - if you play the current Savage Tide thread in Dungeon Magazine (last issue this month - cue Taps), you wind up visiting both the Shrine of Tamochoan and the Isle of Dread.

HIDDEN SHRINE OF TAMOCHOAN is among my very favorite DnD adventures ever. Great dungeon.

Perry Holley

08-18-2007, 07:03 AM

The Chaosium CALL OF CTHULHU ranks very high on my all-time favorite games list, but honestly, that's despite the rules rather than because of them. You're right they weren't particularly intrusive, which is a plus, but the Chaosium/Runequest system was nonetheless always fairly clunky - though it never got in the way of the fun.Getting increasingly off-topic, but... Jeffrey, have you ever looked at the Unknown Armies RPG? From what I know of your gaming preferences, I think you would really enjoy it.

JeffreyWKramer

08-18-2007, 07:04 AM

My favorite edition for adventures was original AD&D, for great stuff like Tamoachan and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. For actual rules, 3.0 was great. I never actually bought 3.5, so I don't know what it brought to the table.

I loved a lot of the old-school DnD adventures.

The 3.5 stuff I saw... it was pretty annoying, really. It was mostly 3.0 rehash, with just enough changes to make using 3.0 stuff a pain in the ass.

Really, the whole 3.0/3.5 things struck me as some of the problems with MAGIC:THE GATHERING transferring over to DnD. Some of the spells and items and feats, as originally defined, were more or less made to be "broken" in clever combination with other spells, feats and such, so all of a sudden they get banned from competition or rewritten, and power-gamers have to buy the new set to dig through for the new broken combinations.

And again, it's hard for me to not view this as entirely intentional on the part of WotC.

JeffreyWKramer

08-18-2007, 07:05 AM

Getting increasingly off-topic, but... Jeffrey, have you ever looked at the Unknown Armies RPG? From what I know of your gaming preferences, I think you would really enjoy it.

Yeah, I think I've still got a copy, even. It's one of those games I'd love to play or run but have never had the opportunity or been able to interest people in trying out.

lonewolf23k

08-18-2007, 07:44 AM

I used to be a big fan of D&D 3rd, and then of 3.5...

But after a few attempts at DMing, the system's complexity got to me. If D&D 4e can make things easier, and offer me a chance to host games online (I have trouble finding groups where I live), then I might give it a shot.

Otherwise, I'm going to stay with GURPS as my first choice of systems.

Perry Holley

08-18-2007, 11:36 AM

Yeah, I think I've still got a copy, even. It's one of those games I'd love to play or run but have never had the opportunity or been able to interest people in trying out.If you don't mind me asking, as a therapist, what is your opinion on UA's Madness Meter system?

JeffreyWKramer

08-18-2007, 11:51 AM

If you don't mind me asking, as a therapist, what is your opinion on UA's Madness Meter system?

I haven't looked at that game in so long that I don't even remember what the game mechanics are, so I'm afraid I don't have an opinion.

Most such systems in most games aren't particularly reflective of reality, but they aren't any less so than most of what you find in the media.

macul

08-21-2007, 04:52 AM

I liked ADnD 2nd Edition until it got bogged down with endless sets of supplemental rules and a lot of really, really poorly-conceived, unbalanced character kits.

I think DnD 3.0 was a very good game, probably superior to all previous versions. If 3.5 had come out first, I'd probably also have been fine with it, but with it coming out and redoing so much stuff just a couple years after 3.0 started, it just pissed me off.

Same for me. I enjoyed 2nd edition just fine until the class and race books were published. I believe I can pinpoint the beginning of my disdain when the first Bladesinger popped in our game. It was all downhill from there.

3rd edition really isn't a bad game. I do kind of like it to be honest and it was probably needed, but I don't like my pencil and paper RPGs to be treated as software revisions, which is what is the current trend. 3.0 -> 3.5 -> 4.0. 4.5 won't be far behind.

Subotai

08-25-2007, 04:22 PM

Exactly. They won't knock out the kinks in 4.0, so for people purchasing the new edition, why not wait until 4.5?

Astonishing X-Fan

08-25-2007, 09:58 PM

I think 3/3.5 is a fantastic system, and I really question the need for a 4th edition already.

Serik

08-26-2007, 12:26 AM

But after a few attempts at DMing, the system's complexity got to me. If D&D 4e can make things easier, and offer me a chance to host games online (I have trouble finding groups where I live), then I might give it a shot.

Yeah, online games with a solid group would be amazingly fun. Perhaps a CBR group at some point? I've always wanted to play D&D, but there's no groups around here either.

Perry Holley

08-26-2007, 02:06 PM

Swiped without pity from ENworld...

Races:

* Mentioned some race disappearing from core (bets go for the Gnome), possibly to be included in an early supplement.
* Tiefling included, and they look much more demonic than now (almost half-demon).
* Changeling from Eberron may be included.
* "Dwarven resilience, elven evasion, a half-elf’s inspiring presence" mentioned as racial traits.
* Classes can be improved by racial feats, in a similar way to how current racial substitution levels work.
* All classes have at will, per encounter and per day abilities. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928)

Classes:

* Levels go up to 30, instead of 20;
Level division: (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928)
o 1-10 Heroic - foes are orcs and ogres, some giants, small dragons. Adventures tend to be local.
o 11-20 Paragon - on par with the current low to mid teens right now. Bigger threats are faced that might threaten a kingdom.
o 21-30 Epic- World or Planar threats.
* The goal is to have the levels play in a similar manner - they don't want a 25th character overwhelmed with 80 abilities. The main differences should be in the story, not how they play.
* From GamerZer0's interview with James Wyatt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs): There are four "roles".
o Defender: fighter & paladin classes
o Leader: cleric & warlord classes
o Controller: wizard class
o Striker: rogue & ranger classes
* Although two PCs may serve the same role, they may do it in different ways. (Like fighters with different styles.) The roles are geared towards combat; a PC's non-combat aspects can differentiate him further. He also said that they are still considering the possibility of there being a class or two that doesn't quite fit the four "roles"
* Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard definitely stay (multiple mentions and examples). Also mentioned Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger. Mentioned that wizard and sorcerer won't merge. Sorcerer (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928) will be different from wizards in more ways than just resource management.
* Mentioned that paladins can be of other alignments other than lawful good. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13461548&postcount=2)
* Mentioned a warlord class
* Druid mentioned in D&D's seminar's summary (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928)
* Backstab mentioned.
* Fighter's "powers" depend highly on the weapon they chose as primary - spears have different "powers" available than axes; swords and greatswords are very flexible in terms of said "powers"
* Wisdom helps with power selection.
* Mentioned a "rain of blows" power or maneuver for swords; mentioned making a choice between taking the abilities "Supreme Cleave" or "Massive Strike".
* More on martial abilities (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070820a): "A skilled halberdier can hack a foe with his weapon’s blade and spin around to smash a second foe with the haft. A fighter with a longsword disarms her foe with a flick of her wrist, while a battle hungry axeman cleaves through shields, armor, and bone." "Rogues have a similar relationship with skills. A nimble rogue dives through the air to tumble past an ogre, while a charismatic one tricks an enemy into looking away just before she delivers a killing blow with her dagger. Just as fighters do more with weapons than any other character, rogues push skills beyond the limits that constrain other PCs."
* Cleric mentioned creating a "surge of healing power (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a)" alongside a critical hit. This hints (yet unconfirmed) to mechanics similar to some Crusader maneuvers, from Tome of Battle.
* Some current base classes disappear; classes yet to be mentioned and therefore good candidates are Monk and Bard. Classes that don't appear in the PHB will appear in future products (http://mouseferatu.livejournal.com/497515.html)
Psionics not to be included in core, though they'll have support (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928).
* Prestige classes stay (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928).

Feats and skills:

* Move silently and hide rolled into one ("Stealth?")
* Some of the more obscure or less used skills disappear (mentioned tailor and rope use)
* Mentioned that Sage should be "considered a preview [of the skill system]"
* Feats won't form long chains (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928).
* There will be rules akin to the retraining rules in PHBII (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928)- they don't like the idea of people planning their careers from level 1 to 30.

Combat and encounters:

* Rules for non-combat encounters (http://mouseferatu.livejournal.com/497803.html). The example given was social interaction. Unlike 3E, where negotiation amounts to a single Diplomacy check, it's treated almost like a combat in 4E. I make a skill check, but I also tell the DM what/how I'm doing. The opponent responds with behavior (and a check) of his own. I counter with a new check, and new words. And so forth.
* Saves mentioned (http://mouseferatu.livejournal.com/497803.html)
AC mentioned (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a), apparently with the same function as it has today.
* Free, immediate, move and standard actions mentioned (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a). (it stands to reason Swift actions will be present too).
* Critical hits mentioned.
* Attacks of opportunity gone or greatly changed/simplified: a fighter charges a dragon (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a) and no AoO is mentioned.
* Grapple greatly simplified.
* Confirmation rolls for critical hits possibly go away.
* Combat still uses a square grid

Spells and magic:

* Vancian system survives, but it's only a "fraction (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928)" of the magic (or magic options) available to characters: "a wizard who casts all his memorized per day spells should be at about 80% of power."
* "Wizards will be able to cast 25th-level spells (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13473454&postcount=6)."
* Fireballs don't deal 1d6/level damage (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13496433&postcount=7) any more. Also, game breaking spells (spells that fundamentally change the gaming scenario, like etherealness, scrying, and save or die effects) "have been addressed as well".
* Mentioned a "ray of freezing cold (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a)".

Magic items

* Magic item creation doesn't use XP (http://mouseferatu.livejournal.com/497803.html) or require a feat.

Monsters:

* The monsters will have their own roles and their own abilities (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13457928#post13457928)- the orc will have orc abilities, not fighter or barbarian abilites
* Monsters no longer (http://mouseferatu.livejournal.com/497803.html) drain XP (implied no draining of levels?)
* Vulnerability to energy likely to work differently (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a) in 4e, with additional effects (like slowing in the case of cold) instead of (or in addition to?) extra damage.
* "The ettin (http://mouseferatu.livejournal.com/497515.html), for instance, has the whole two-heads thing, so it can go twice in one round, and take unrelated actions."
* Ancient (red?) dragons apparently now can do a lot of things (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a):
o An inferno aura, useable as a free action.
o A tail slap attack with an added pushback effect, useable as a free action.
o Two claw attacks, useable as a standard action.
o A fireball spit that sticks to the target dealing extra damage, useable as a standard action.
o A breath weapon, but we don't get to see what kind of action it normally takes - a free one like the inferno aura, as different uses of the same ability?
o A special action granting an extra standard action.
o They may take an immediate action to use their breath weapon when reduced blow half damage.
o They may take an immediate action to use their tail slap when about to be flanked.
* Said dragon would have around 1000 hit points.There's a lot here that I like, to be honest: non-LG paladins, Feats not forming long chains, de-emphasizing having to plan out your entire career from 1st level, the removal of AoO, and less emphasis on the Vancian "fire and forget" magic system. OTOH, from what I've seen there is still a heavy emphasis on miniatures, and they seem to be pushing the game toward online play, which isn't really what draws me to tabletop RPGs.

JeffreyWKramer

08-26-2007, 03:11 PM

So, it really is a completely new edition, as different from 3/3.5 as they were from ADnD 2nd Edition. So, all the rulebooks and supplements and all that can be redone and resold yet again.

This just confirms my decision to have nothing whatsoever to do with this, or with WotC products in general at this point.

Perry Holley

08-27-2007, 06:19 AM

Presented without comment...

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070824

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070825

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070827

Shellhead

08-27-2007, 10:53 AM

I really do understand why WotC feels the (financial) need to do 4.0. Rather than nitpicking individual changes from Perry's long list (despite the temptation), I just wonder who WotC sees as their target market for all these changes. WotC may not have made as much money as they could have if that open license had been handled differently, but unless they have a ton of content in the works, players are more likely to stick with the wealth of material generated for 3.0/3.5.

JeffreyWKramer

08-27-2007, 11:14 AM

I really do understand why WotC feels the (financial) need to do 4.0.

So do I. Greed.

If the rules for football, baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis and such changed dramatically every few years, such that the skills an athlete works at honing suddenly don't provide the advantage they used to, I'm guessing few people would stick with such sports. But, they don't change, and that's why sports are as close as we get to universal leisure activities, and gaming continues as a niche industry mostly the province of weirdos and fanatics.

But, WotC doesn't care, so long as they can keep tricking the same small core of people into buying the newest version of the same damn thing over and over. Why go the trouble of inventing something new when you can keep reinventing the wheel?

Kage Kisaragi

08-27-2007, 11:37 AM

I'm hear a lot of awesome things about 4e over at the WotC message boards, some directly from the officles themselves. I must say I'm really stoked now. :)

The ideas that I've heard might be implemented have me drooling. Imagine playing a Fighter Wizard with just multiclassing and still being able to cast high level spells and being a decent fighter. :D

Even straights Fighters now actually have REAL Options in combat similiar to some of things found in the Tomb of Battle ahh man what a exciting time to be alive and a gamer. I havent attented a Campaign in sometime, I must just write characters just for the hell of it, trying new combinations and what now and filing them on my PC. Now here about how Multiclassing wont make you a sucky 2 type of class characters, and that race will always be important, that every class will basically be able to branch out and develope in different ways so that no two Player Characters are the same unless they intentionally try to make the same character, wow just wow.

Things that are supposedly in.

Racial Substitution Levels for all classes
Racial Feats that continously improve so that racial benefits stay important.
Down playing Magic Items so that the actual class is more important than the gear they are wearing.
atleast 25 different spell levels.
Talent Trees for classes.
Spells Per day, per encounter and at will.
NO MORE LEVEL ADJUSTMENTS!!!!!!!! UBER AWESOME!!!!!
Multiclassing not being a pain in the ass.
The option for Non Lawful Good Paladins and Paladins of different deities.
Tougher Characters. No more dropping the Wizard with one arrow at first level.
Weapons offer different attack options, but the Fighter gets the best use of them.

And a parently a few other things that haven't been comfirmed. All in all its sounding good.

Jmacq1

08-27-2007, 11:46 AM

So do I. Greed.

If the rules for football, baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis and such changed dramatically every few years, such that the skills an athlete works at honing suddenly don't provide the advantage they used to, I'm guessing few people would stick with such sports. But, they don't change, and that's why sports are as close as we get to universal leisure activities, and gaming continues as a niche industry mostly the province of weirdos and fanatics.

But, WotC doesn't care, so long as they can keep tricking the same small core of people into buying the newest version of the same damn thing over and over. Why go the trouble of inventing something new when you can keep reinventing the wheel?

Yeah, we get it: WotC is greedy and evil, and you're not buying their stuff anymore.

Of course it's greed. The company exists to make money. Talking about an attempt to make more money as though it's somehow unusual, unexpected, or "wrong" is like saying you don't expect a fish to swim.

WotC wants to unsaddle themselves from the OGL, that's fine and likely a smart move for their part. If the new system offers a playing experience that ends up being more enjoyable than the old system, then it's a worthy product, regardless of the motives behind bringing it out. Nobody's putting a gun to anyone's head and telling them they have to buy it, and it's not like there'll be any shortage of 3.5 material published by other companies for several years to come.

I'm with some of the others who have mentioned that they don't think there's any "need" among the gaming community for a vastly revamped 4th edition, but I don't begrudge WotC for doing it. It's not as if all those 3.5 books people own are going to spontaneously combust on the release date for 4th Edition.

But anyway, I don't think trying to make it sound like anyone who buys 4th edition is some kind of gullible idiot for doing so is going to be a particularly effective counter-argument.

Shellhead

08-27-2007, 12:51 PM

Jmacq1

08-27-2007, 01:00 PM

I think that the OGL move was brutally short-sighted and 4.0 will be dead on arrival. I really don't mind WotC trying to make some more money off one of their best products, but the glut of 3.0/3.5 products is an obstacle that they probably won't be able to overcome. Some of the changes that Perry listed are bold choices, but probably won't go over well with the core fanbase for D&D.

I tend to agree. 4th Edition will likely sell (initially) only to the hardest of hardcore D&D gamers, and perhaps a smaller number of folks that are just curious enough to pick up the book and see what it offers.

Beyond that, the 3.5 edition juggernaut is just too dang big to stop now. There are too many companies that have bought in to jump to a new system now. Even with WotC making promises that they'll be generous with licensing 4th Edition, I don't see a lot of companies shifting over wholesale anytime soon.

If 4th Edition really is a significant improvement over 3.5, people will slowly trickle over as word-of-mouth gets around. But they've got a whole heck of a lot of mileage to overtake to overcome 3.5. Heck, I'd say the best business move they could probably make is to continue to publish at least the 3.5 PHB and DMG in limited numbers every year.

macul

08-27-2007, 01:28 PM

Mentioned that paladins can be of other alignments other than lawful good.

Hasn't that been a house rule for 95% of D&Ders for years anyway?

Shellhead

08-27-2007, 04:12 PM

Despite my negative remarks about D&D earlier in this thread, I have to admit that I saw some great material for 3.5 at the friendly neighborhood comic/game store last week. There was that massive city book Ptolus, which has been getting rave reviews. There was a sourcebook for running a campaign in the same setting as the Black Company books. And there were at least two other interesting things that I don't remember offhand.

Slam_Bradley

08-27-2007, 04:26 PM

I honestly haven't been interested in any D & D since first edition AD&D. In my opinion it was never broken and thus never needed fixed. I picked up a couple of 3E books, and they were really pretty, but they confused me, a long time gamer. I don't like "feats" I don't like 80 different abilities. I like a stripped down game mechanic with few rules and lots of role-play.

So, I break out my 1st edition stuff now and then and play with the chitlens and an old buddy from high school.

If I'm going to buy anything new it's going to be Castles & Crusades which is backward compatible with 1st edition and for which E. Gary Gygax is adapting Castle Greyhawk as Castle Zagyg.

Perry Holley

08-27-2007, 06:12 PM

I just wonder who WotC sees as their target market for all these changes. Honestly? I'm pretty certain it's not us... and I don't mean that in a negative or sarcastic manner.

There's an old adage (I have no idea if it's true or not, but bear with me here) that if you take a snapshot of comic book readers at any given time, and if you then jump forward 5 years, 80% of that snapshot audience is no longer reading comics; they've moved on to other things, and (hopefully) there's enough new readers to fill the void of the 80% who left.

I suspect tabletop roleplayers are of a similar nature. Sure, there's there's longtime gamers like us who have been around a while and played through multiple editions of D&D, but a lot of people, I suspect, get into gaming for a few years, then drop out for whatever reason, and again hopefully there's enough new blood getting into gaming at the same time to keep the hobby/industry viable.

I strongly suspect that it's not the long-term gamers that WOTC's going after (although they want them too, of course), but rather they want the new gamers, the ones who haven't been through the edition wars, and they especially want the potential tabletop gamers that they've lost to WOW and the like.

It's something of a shame for the people who've invested heavily in 3.5, but if WOTC isn't making enough money from the corebooks and supplements at this point to justify continuing the line, then yeah, from a business perspective they need to work on a new edition. In the end, it's up to each individual gamer to decide whether or not they want to hop on the 4.0 train, or just stick with 3.x (mind you, this is coming from the guy who still plays RPGs that have been out of print for over two decades, so I don't ee the need myself for jumping on a new edition just because it's new and shiny).

At least, that's my 2 cp on the subject.

Perry Holley

08-27-2007, 06:24 PM

If I'm going to buy anything new it's going to be Castles & Crusades which is backward compatible with 1st edition and for which E. Gary Gygax is adapting Castle Greyhawk as Castle Zagyg.If you're on the fence regarding C&C, you can check out the C&C quickstart PDF here (http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/downloads/pdfs/cnc_qs.pdf).

GozertheGozarian

08-27-2007, 06:28 PM

JeffreyWKramer

08-28-2007, 08:33 AM

But anyway, I don't think trying to make it sound like anyone who buys 4th edition is some kind of gullible idiot for doing so is going to be a particularly effective counter-argument.

Probably not, since it's hard to talk sense to gullible idiots.

JeffreyWKramer

08-28-2007, 08:39 AM

It's something of a shame for the people who've invested heavily in 3.5, but if WOTC isn't making enough money from the corebooks and supplements at this point to justify continuing the line, then yeah, from a business perspective they need to work on a new edition.

Yet, lots of companies make lots of money making sports gear and such for activities that remain stable.

If WotC treated DnD as something with a stable core, and focused on coming up with quality supplemental products rather than just flooding the market with product, I'm betting they'd still make a respectable profit.

Jmacq1

08-28-2007, 09:13 AM

Yet, lots of companies make lots of money making sports gear and such for activities that remain stable.

If WotC treated DnD as something with a stable core, and focused on coming up with quality supplemental products rather than just flooding the market with product, I'm betting they'd still make a respectable profit.

Quality, however, is entirely subjective. Ask ten different players/readers about a given book and you'll likely get at least three or four differing opinions.

The problem with WotC is that there's very little ground left to cover in 3.5 Edition that hasn't already been trod over either by WotC itself or one of their competitors/"partners" thanks to the OGL. It's especially hard to pull off without unleashing more and more "optional rules" that for all intents and purposes may as well turn it into a new edition of the game anyway.

JeffreyWKramer

08-28-2007, 10:33 AM

The problem with WotC is that there's very little ground left to cover in 3.5 Edition that hasn't already been trod over either by WotC itself or one of their competitors/"partners" thanks to the OGL. It's especially hard to pull off without unleashing more and more "optional rules" that for all intents and purposes may as well turn it into a new edition of the game anyway.

If they wanted to make DnD a serious, long-term hobby activity rather than a short-term cash cow, then the OGL was definitely a bad idea. As is, it worked fairly well for their short-term-mindedness.

As far as the other... books of new character classes balanced with the PH ones, new spells, items, races, monsters... setting material... variant capaigns like Eberon or the Realms (or, going back further and into greater variance, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Al Qadim, Ravenloft, etc.). These are things that expand the options in the game without any need for redoing the system. The PSIONICS HANDBOOK is a good example. Some such products didn't sell well in the past, true - GREYHAWK, for example, was pretty much always a long-term loser in the market - but often this had to do with poorly-conceived or indifferently-produced product (a lot of the various "complete" books and character kids for ADnD 2nd Ed or the dry prose and often-amateurish art in the Al Qadim books, for instance) rather than anything innately wrong with the basic concept. Back ages ago, the original UNEARTHED ARCANA was the first gaming book ever to break onto bookstore best-seller lists.

GozertheGozarian

08-28-2007, 10:45 AM

I had to play Greyhawk, it was the only premade world until the tail end of 1st ed.

Perry Holley

08-31-2007, 04:32 AM

The madness continues...

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070828

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070829

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070830

Slam_Bradley

08-31-2007, 08:27 AM

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070830

That last one slayed me.

Perry Holley

09-01-2007, 06:24 AM

That last one slayed me.It's funny 'cause it's true!

Perry Holley

09-11-2007, 07:39 PM

An example of play, swiped from the WOTC boards:

We work hard at Wizards, but some of our work is all play. I recruited my gaming buddies to test the game further at home and to see what its like to DM with the new rules. The players got to test the character side of things, and I got to experience adventure building and monsters.

My players like a reason to adventure together beyond being mutually employed by the same bloke who relies on the local watering hole to hire mercenaries. So they created a mostly human party of 1st level PCs who are all affiliated with a local count. The warlord, Domna, is the baron’s youngest daughter, and Tian, the rogue, is Domna’s lifelong friend and also the son of the leader of baron’s personal mercenary troop. Sasha, the wizard, is daughter to the baron’s chancellor, and guarding her is Robozcniek, a warforged fighter. Rounding out the group is Heron, an eladrin ranger who was a childhood friend of Tian and Domna. Long story short, the political situation made the count’s having a team of specialists with a little legal authority a good thing. My having a party under direct influence of a local ruler was even better.

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/Knightsky_2006/20070831a_play_1th.jpg

I wanted to whip up something that showcased the new game’s tech, but I wanted to do it quickly. Using Own K. C. Stevens’s A Dark and Stormy Knight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20050329a) as inspiration, I designed a haunted tomb under a tor. One of the count’s barons had been rewarding retiring soldiers with frontier land near the tor, and these farmers recently spotted goblin scouts ranging toward a fallen tower built atop the tor by citizens of a long-gone hobgoblin kingdom. Then a little girl disappeared, along with some livestock. The count dispatched Domna and her friends to investigate the situation.

After traveling to the outlying farmsteads, which were fortified yards surrounded by fields, and speaking with one of the farmers, the PCs determined that one home might have come under attack the night before. They investigated, and they soon saw the farm’s stockade gate was open and the inner yard, where livestock was usually kept at night, was empty but drenched in blood. Heron noticed some large wolf tracks leading into the yard, and the party cautiously entered, expecting goblins.

Right they were. To the east, Heron spotted saddled wolves in the barn and a goblin archer in the barn’s loft. Tian spied another goblin peeking out of the modest farmhouse to the north. Neither chose to warn their oblivious comrades, so a surprise round was my players’ first contact with 4th Edition combat.

Their second impression came squarely from the three arrows with which Heron skewered the hapless goblin sharpshooter in the loft. That poor goblin fired on Heron, missing but triggering an immediate counterattack from the ranger, who followed up with two more arrows on his turn. The sharpshooter was dead before the third arrow struck home.

Taking a cue from Heron’s boldness, thinking the fight might be over quickly, Tian rushed to the house despite protests from Domna that he was overextending himself and thereby the party. Tian arrived at the closed front door and threw it open, but couldn’t quite reach the javelin-wielding miscreant within.

Too far out in front, Tian and Heron soon learned their mistake. The wolves rushed Heron, easily flanking him and pulling him to the ground. The goblin skirmisher in the house hurled a black-shafted javelin at Tian and scored a critical hit! Tian lost more than half his hit points in one blow, and to add insult to injury, the goblin then scampered out of the house’s open back door to a tree on its west side.

But then the first regular round started. Domna rushed a wolf and missed it, after shouting encouragement to her friends (providing a small bonus to them). The wolves continued to tear at Heron, almost sending the unfortunate ranger to death’s door. Sasha used a wizard strike with her staff, not only injuring a wolf, but also pushing it away from the prone Heron. This gave Heron the room he needed to stand, move away from his assailants, and regain a few hit points with a second wind. On his first regular turn, Tian used his second wind, then pursued the goblin by leaving the front door and running to intercept at the tree. He missed the wily skirmisher with his attack. The goblin cackled and backed away, then hurled another javelin at Tian—for another natural 20! Down Tian went, dying. Moving closer to Tian, the skirmisher started to reach for the knife on his belt to finish the rogue off. Robozcniek cut that thought short, literally, running across the battlefield, then charging the skirmisher and finishing the little dastard with one swift longsword stroke. On the second regular round, Domna struck the wounded wolf, trying to keep it off Heron. That wolf attacked Domna, but she fended it off with her shield. But the uninjured wolf smelled blood, and it took Heron down again, this time knocking the eladrin out. Sasha maneuvered to blast both wolves with another strike from her staff, pushing the one attacking Heron away again. Robozcniek rushed across the battlefield a second time, and he terribly wounded the wolf that had been attacking Heron.

As the initiative count came to the top again, Domna used her tactical acumen to attack in such a way that the wolf she hit opened itself up to Robozcniek. The warforged struck true, and the wolf collapsed in a heap. Badly wounded and alone against many enemies, the remaining wolf tucked tail and ran, but Sasha was having none of it. She pulled out all the stops and set off a fiery blast around the fleeing beast. It tumbled down, still smoldering. Their first real battle over, the heroes still standing aided their fallen friends—who had learned a valuable lesson. Investigation of the farmstead and more adventure remained ahead of them.I'm intrigued by this 'Second Wind' ability, but overall it sounds like 4th ed combat may have that same overly-fiddly feel that drove me away from 3.x.

Shellhead

09-11-2007, 11:33 PM

An example of play, swiped from the WOTC boards:

I'm intrigued by this 'Second Wind' ability, but overall it sounds like 4th ed combat may have that same overly-fiddly feel that drove me away from 3.x.

That campaign concept sounds great, and the write-up of the fight scene is good. But yeah, it does sound like they have sacrificed playability for realism again. 1st edition may have been a sloppy set of rules, kind of a haphazard collection of house rules built up over time before getting published, but at least the only complex part of combat was the spell-casting. (I don't know much about 2nd edition except that they added in all those skill slots.)

But it seems like 3.0 was when the combat system became complex. The overall trend has been to imitate everything good about the highly tactical GURPS combat system, overlooking the fact that GURPS is a pain to run. I say that as someone who spent years running both 1st edition AD&D and GURPS 2nd/3rd edition. Lord, I used to run a weekly GURPS fantasy campaign for eleven players... I only lasted about 10 months before I burned out.

Jmacq1

09-12-2007, 06:56 AM

An example of play, swiped from the WOTC boards:

I'm intrigued by this 'Second Wind' ability, but overall it sounds like 4th ed combat may have that same overly-fiddly feel that drove me away from 3.x.

Second Wind is included in the new Star Wars Saga Edition.

If I recall correctly, it basically allows you to "insta-heal" a certain amount (I believe 25% of your max total?) of HP, once a day (though you can take feats and abilities that improve the ability and/or allow you to use it more often) and every character has it.

Of course they also try to emphasize that HP is meant to be an abstract and not simply blood loss/actual wounding, but a combination of stamina, physical toughness, and even luck to an extent.

Overall though, Saga Edition combat does seem considerably more streamlined than D&D 3.0 or 3.5 though I doubt it'll be exactly the same.

Perry Holley

09-16-2007, 01:04 PM

http://conk.com/files/images/phb.preview.jpg

Shellhead

09-17-2007, 04:18 PM

I'm getting a manga vibe from that artwork. Maybe they are aiming this game at teens and 20-somethings?

Jmacq1

09-18-2007, 07:13 AM

I'm getting a manga vibe from that artwork. Maybe they are aiming this game at teens and 20-somethings?

I'm sure they'd love to capture that market.

Come to think of it, the hordes of kids that were playing Pokemon a few years back are just reaching the age where D&D might be appealing to them, aren't they?

But that artist has been around for a little while now, or at least has been doing quite a bit of art for WotC in the last few years.

Draconomicon

09-18-2007, 07:44 AM

I'm getting a manga vibe from that artwork. Maybe they are aiming this game at teens and 20-somethings?

Huh?
Good god, no, that is Wayne Reynolds ( http://www.waynereynolds.com/Menu.htm ) who did a lot of art for Dragon/Dungeon and for several Monster Manuals and source books. If anything, his art is influenced by Marvel comics. In fact, he did draw an ongoing Story within the pages of an UK Warhammer40k Comic.

Shellhead

09-18-2007, 08:04 AM

Huh?
Good god, no, that is Wayne Reynolds ( http://www.waynereynolds.com/Menu.htm ) who did a lot of art for Dragon/Dungeon and for several Monster Manuals and source books. If anything, his art is influenced by Marvel comics. In fact, he did draw an ongoing Story within the pages of an UK Warhammer40k Comic.

So you don't think that Marvel artists or even Wayne himself are into anime or manga? Marvel tried to do an entire product line for the manga market just a few years ago, although it didn't work out.

Draconomicon

09-18-2007, 02:59 PM

So you don't think that Marvel artists or even Wayne himself are into anime or manga? Marvel tried to do an entire product line for the manga market just a few years ago, although it didn't work out.

Well, of course they are, but his art is really not in the vein of mangas.
Id argue there is a definitive influence by John Buscema within his art visible.

Perry Holley

09-18-2007, 04:40 PM

Maybe they are aiming this game at teens and 20-somethings?With the possible exception of the OD&D little brown books, has there ever been an edition of A/D&D not aimed primarily at either teens and/or 20-somethings?

Shellhead

09-19-2007, 08:34 AM

With the possible exception of the OD&D little brown books, has there ever been an edition of A/D&D not aimed primarily at either teens and/or 20-somethings?

Could be, but I bet the average age of tabletop role-players has been gradually moving up. The younger gamers are much more interested in console games, PC games, and even CCGs.

Jmacq1

09-19-2007, 08:50 AM

Could be, but I bet the average age of tabletop role-players has been gradually moving up. The younger gamers are much more interested in console games, PC games, and even CCGs.

I dunno if it's as bad with the RPG market as it is with the Comic market. Or at least the "age creep" is slower. I still see plenty of teens and twentysomethings gathered around the gaming tables at my local game store on weekends. Though they're playing a mix of CCGs, Miniature Wargames, and traditional RPGs. There's a lot of bleed-over between the three (Ie people that buy one often get into the other two, at least to some degree).

But there's always the desire to get more of the younger market. Especially since regardless of the demographics, the RPG market is still pretty small, all told. WotC wants to recapture the glory days of the late 70's/early 80's when it seemed like everyone and their mother had at least played D&D a couple of times.

Perry Holley

10-13-2007, 07:28 PM

A sample monster stat block for the 4th edition rules have been posted online:

Spined Devil
Medium Immortal Humanoid (Devil)
Level 6 Skirmisher

Init +5 Speed 5 Fly 7

Senses Nethersight, Perception +5

Resists Fire 20

AC 20 Fort 18 Ref 18 Will 18

HP/Blooded 47/23

ATTACKS
Melee 2 claws +9 vs AC each; 2d4+4
Spine Rain Standard, Ranged 10; +9 Dex vs. Ref; 1d6+2 + 2d6 Fire AND Poison 5, Slowed while Poisoned.

SKILLS Spot +10

Str +7(19) Dex +5(14) Con +5(15) Int +5(15) Wis +5(14) Cha +5(15)

If nothing else, it's a lot more streamlined than the 3rd ed stat blocks were...

Jinxer

10-14-2007, 01:14 AM

Perry Holley

11-08-2007, 04:29 PM

If I read this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3876623#post3876623) correctly, publishers like Green Ronin and Mongoose won't be able to do 3rd-party supplements for 4th edition D&D.

Edit: It looks like they can still publish something that will be OGL compatible, but a 4th ed equivalent of the d20 logo looks like it might no longer be an option.

Jmacq1

11-09-2007, 06:22 AM

Correct. Third parties that want to do 4th Edition products will have to pay licensing fees to WotC (which they don't have to do for OGL/d20/3.5 ed). They can continue to publish 3/3.5 Edition/OGL products until the sun burns out, however.

That's part of why this is actually somewhat of a gamble for WotC. With third parties still able to support 3.5 Edition, now they're REALLY going to be competing, at least for the next several years until all those 3.5 Edition PHBs, DMGs, and MMs sell through (and even then, publishers can basically reprint most of those rules). I wouldn't be surprised if this was WotCs plan from the get go: Use the OGL to revitalize the tabletop RPG market (which it did), then try to capture that market with a new edition and leave the OGL publishers in the dust. I'm just not sure the plan hasn't already backfired on them.

Advance buzz among fellow gamers in my neck of the woods is NOT good. Rules streamlining and greater customization are seen as pluses, but the all-but-inevitable heavy reliance on miniatures (though they'll claim up and down that you don't -really- need them) and now the whole "pay us more so you can have online access to more complete information" aspect of it are huge turn-offs.

Perry Holley

11-18-2007, 01:33 PM

Draconomicon

11-19-2007, 04:31 AM

As a result of 3.x being phased out, Green Ronin is blowing out their d20 stuff for uber-cheap:

d20 Apocalypse sale (http://paizo.com/store/sale/greenRonin)

I wouldn't be surprised to see other d20 publishers doing so as well.

Considering "Fluff wise" their books have very often been very high quality, this is an awesome deal.

I quite liked their Races of renown books, especially "Aasimar and Tiefling - Guidebook to the Planetouched" which is, imho, one of the best books regarding planetouched races.

DarkBlade

11-19-2007, 01:15 PM

Bwar. I grabbed several of them, but didn't grab that one. Ah well.

Thanks for the heads up, Perry!

Perry Holley

11-19-2007, 02:30 PM

Yeah, as soon as my next check from work clears, I'm going on a shopping spree... :evilsmile

DarkBlade

11-19-2007, 05:25 PM

I kinda wish I'd grabbed a few more 3.5 DM screens. I'm too used to the Amazon shipping deals. I might go back and do it. Hey Perry, do you know if that VtM comic is any good?

Dungeons & Dragons: 3.5 Dungeon Master's Screen
Legions of Hell (d20)
Ultramodern Firearms Hardcover (d20 Modern)
Testament RPG (d20)
Fang & Fury: A Guidebook to Vampires (d20)
The Witch's Handbook (d20)
The Avatar's Handbook (d20)
The Cavalier's Handbook (d20)
Medieval Player's Manual (d20)
Eternal Rome (d20)
Dungeons & Dragons: Three-Dragon Ante--Not on sale, but I've been meaning to pick up a deck and shipping cost for it alone made it not worth it to me before.

Perry Holley

11-19-2007, 07:18 PM

Hey Perry, do you know if that VtM comic is any good?No idea, sorry.

DarkBlade

12-17-2007, 07:51 PM

Watch out.. if you placed your order later, a bunch of it may get canceled. I placed a second order (was waiting on a paycheck and a couple secret santa names) and ordered a bunch of stuff, mostly for gifts.. they notified me today that half my $#@%*# order has been canceled. Their "making things right" is a 25% off coupon at some point early next year. I'm less than thrilled.

Perry Holley

12-17-2007, 08:17 PM

I'm less than thrilled.Same here. I had about 4 of the 11 items I ordered cancelled out today... and I ordered pretty early into the sale.

NOT a happy camper. Kinda regret posting that link now, and would like to apologize to anyone who bought stuff there because of me posting it.

(By comparison, when Eden Studios had there $5/5-day sale, they got there stuff out in record time, and when I had one slight snafu with the order, they went above and beyond to correct it... Eden will definately get my money in the future, whereas Paizo will most likely not)

DarkBlade

12-18-2007, 05:51 AM

I feel silly for not having mentioned it to Tadhg.. when I was frustrated tonight at the cancellation, he reminded me about The Gryphon downtown. It's more used bookstore than gameshop and I'd forgotten about it. They -may- have been participating in the sale, or not... bwar. However, it's long over now.

I'm prepping a rather displeased email to send off to Paizo's customer service.

Perry Holley

01-09-2008, 04:03 PM

Want to get an early start on publishing 4th ed. compatible material? It'll only cost you five grand (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a).

Necromance Games has already agreed to pay up. (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3981219&postcount=16)

moebius

01-10-2008, 07:36 AM

The most fun that I've had playing D&D in a long time was while playing the Temple of Elemental Evil PC game. It was an excellent conversion of a big first edition AD&D adventure, only updated to the 3.5 rules edition. D&D is pretty cool when the computer can make all the tedious calculations about encumbrance, initiative, to hit rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and especially attacks of opportunity.

Playing 3.5, or really any edition of D&D, as a tabletop RPG is a lumbering exercise in rules-speak.The rules usually destroy any atmosphere that the DM is trying to establish.

I've been part of a Return to the ToEE tabletop game for six months now, and it's a lot of fun.

I feel you on the accounting, though...we're at the point where number crunching takes up so much of the game that it becomes a burden.

For the programmers out there...I've been making noises in game about how useful a PDA application would be that calculates your to Hit, AC and saving throws in certain situations...keeps track of all your modifiers and the conditions in effect.

I will have no part of 3.5, nor will the groups I usually play with, other than to test run 4.0. There's just too much out there in 3.5, and I don't see enough significant problems in 3.X to make me want to switch over, whereas 3.X was a significant improvement over 2nd Edition.

Kage Kisaragi

01-13-2008, 03:01 PM

GozertheGozarian

01-13-2008, 03:42 PM

I say nay, just as I said nay to 3 and 3.5.

macul

01-13-2008, 03:47 PM

Absolutely not.

Astonishing X-Fan

01-13-2008, 07:31 PM

Change is good. If one doesn't like the changes, then they can still play whatever edition they can prefer.

Perry Holley

01-14-2008, 06:06 AM

GozertheGozarian

01-14-2008, 06:18 AM

Change is good. If one doesn't like the changes, then they can still play whatever edition they can prefer.
I still play 1st ed, slightly modded to for non weapon proficiencies.

Jmacq1

01-14-2008, 06:40 AM

If I do pick it up,it will be after a) I've been able to get enough feedback from other gamers to see if I want to pick it up, and b) wait until the 2nd printing, so that they will have hopefully corrected the various errors that inevitably crop up in their first printings.

From what I've read, there are some of the technical ideas I like (i.e. "Second Wind"), and the default approach ("Points of Light") has its appeal, but 4e still sounds rules-wise that it will be, much like 3.x, a little to overly-fiddly for my personal gaming tastes.

Sounds about like my take on it. I'll wait for feedback and an errata'ed printing (or a 4.5 edition) before I'll consider buying in. I've got waaaay too much 3.5 stuff to try to change over full-tilt. Even if I have friends that seem highly enthused about 4th Edition.

Jared_Humpherys

01-14-2008, 08:21 AM

Nay. I'll be sticking to 3.5, Burning Wheel, and Lacuna instead.

moebius

01-14-2008, 08:29 AM

If I'm still playing D&D in 2010, I'll think about switching to 4.X. Enjoying 3.5 too much now (except for the Grapple rules).

Jared_Humpherys

01-14-2008, 08:33 AM

If I'm still playing D&D in 2010, I'll think about switching to 4.X. Enjoying 3.5 too much now (except for the Grapple rules).

Rules Compendium, dude. Makes it soooo much easier to follow.

G. Wayne

01-14-2008, 04:07 PM

Not too excited. 4.5 Sounds like the way to go. Then again, there *could* be some absolutely stellar mechanic in there I don't know about.

I like 3.5, and I still have about 15 or so prestige classes I'd like to try out, y'know, ever. And there's all kinds of goodness in the Players Handbook 2 as well.

Arvandor

01-18-2008, 10:06 AM

I haven't played sinced 2nd edition, but I like the sound of the 4e from what I've read online (particularly the Points of Light idea and the changes to the Realms). I think I might start up again, or at least buy a few books and see what they're like.

It's so weird. Everything the veterans are complaining about on message boards sounds damn cool to me.

Jared_Humpherys

01-18-2008, 10:14 AM

Gezora

01-18-2008, 04:33 PM

No need to fix what ain't broken.

WOTC needs more money, is all.

And for our sake, I hope 4.0 in their New Coke.

Joe Grendel

01-19-2008, 11:31 AM

I say yay. The fluff stuff gets ignored in favor of the homebrew anyway, and a lot of the mechanical stuff they're taking on has been a problem since the beginning.

I ran a game with Joe Rice and some others here through a level 2 dungeon (Goodman Games' wonderful Dragonfiend Pact) and the spellcaster heavy group was camping to recover spells practically in every other room.

One shouldn't have to do that, or to form a cookie-cutter group, to be viable.

Now that Necromancer Games, Goodman Games and probably Paizo are in, I'm pretty much committed, although my current group (including Mr. Rice) are not all sold on it, so I may end up running both systems in different games.

Perry Holley

01-19-2008, 03:05 PM

Annnnnnnd... thread merge!

moebius

01-19-2008, 06:12 PM

I ran a game with Joe Rice and some others here through a level 2 dungeon (Goodman Games' wonderful Dragonfiend Pact) and the spellcaster heavy group was camping to recover spells practically in every other room.

I do respect unorthodox groups, but running a spellcaster-heavy group at early levels is like going into a battle with just artillery pieces. The optimal army has infantry, scouts, armor and artillery. You can take some of these pieces away, but you have to be a lot smarter in your approach if you do.

My current high-level campaign has no Rogue, and I keep telling the other players to 1) expect casualties and 2) expect a drop-off in treasure, since we're now too afraid to search rooms for treasure, and not nearly as good as we used to be.

I do like 4.X's approach to making sure you "always have something in your pocket", but I feel like they've already been working toward that with Reserve Feats, ToB Maneuvers and other tomfoolery.

Joe Grendel

01-19-2008, 11:45 PM

Well, the campaign I'm running is heavy on the roleplaying, and light on the tactical stuff, not to mention it was originally eleven player characters that split into two when one half went on the run from the law. No one said "OK, let's have a cleric get in trouble with the law, and have one wizard stay on the good guy team." It would have made things easier, but that would have taken a whole lot of metagaming, which these guys just don't want to do.

lonewolf23k

01-28-2008, 11:40 AM

I've already spent over $200 on 3rd and 3.5th edition books that are now going obsolete, and that I stopped playing with anyways.. If Wizards of the Coast think they can bilk me into spending more cash on their new line of gamebooks, they're crazy.

I'm a full-time GURPS player now.

Jmacq1

01-28-2008, 12:00 PM

Hasn't GURPS done like two or three editions in the last ten years, too?

Perry Holley

01-28-2008, 12:24 PM

Hasn't GURPS done like two or three editions in the last ten years, too?GURPS 3rd edition came out in 1988. GURPS 4th edition was released in the 2004. That's a 16 year difference, so that's hardly comparable to what's going on with D&D.

If anything, before the release of GURPS 4th edition, most GURPS fans were complaining that SJG was taking too long in releasing a new edition.

Joe Grendel

01-29-2008, 10:13 AM

If Wizards of the Coast think they can bilk me into spending more cash on their new line of gamebooks, they're crazy.
Given that, mechanically, 4E seems to be a pretty big improvement on the overly fiddly 3E (although I concede a GURPS fan might feel 3E isn't particularly fiddly at all), I don't think this can be characterized as bilking so much as creating a product not aimed at you.

Jmacq1

01-29-2008, 11:04 AM

GURPS 3rd edition came out in 1988. GURPS 4th edition was released in the 2004. That's a 16 year difference, so that's hardly comparable to what's going on with D&D.

If anything, before the release of GURPS 4th edition, most GURPS fans were complaining that SJG was taking too long in releasing a new edition.

Ahh, my mistake. I must've just been thinking of/seeing new printings or something.

Monkey Boy

02-09-2008, 10:35 AM

I'm pretty much a regular over at the WotC Message boards but I was wondering what do you guys think about the new edition? Are there any table top players on these forums? How excited about it are you?

I'm interested in trying out 4th edition. A few of my friends and I have already planed on having a go at it once its released.

Endless Flight

02-09-2008, 10:44 AM

I'm playing Basic/Expert/Rules Cyclopedia D&D, so I'm not part of the target audience. I'll take a look at the core books when they come out, just for the hell of it.

Perry Holley

03-19-2008, 05:02 PM

Some of you might remember Paizo as the publishers of Dragon and Dungeon magazines in the last few years, before WOTC pulled the rug out from under them, as well as the publisher of the Pathfinder series of adventure modules. Well, with D&D 4.0 around the corner, instead of hanging their future publishings off of 4th ed., Paizo has opted for a different tack... they're publishing their own RPG system, essentially a modified version of the 3.5 rules. It's officially going to be called the Pathfinder RPG, but it's already unofficially known as D&D 3.75. :) The "alpha playtest" is already available as a free PDF download, for those who are curious:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

I wonder how many other d20 publishers will opt not to upgrade to 4th edition, but instead work off of modified versions of the 3.5 SRD?

Jmacq1

03-24-2008, 08:54 AM

I wonder how many other d20 publishers will opt not to upgrade to 4th edition, but instead work off of modified versions of the 3.5 SRD?

Quite a few, considering they have to pay to "upgrade" to 4th Edition, whereas in 3.5 they could produce stuff in that ruleset for free.

It's probably not a huge amount, but WotC is charging a licensing fee for 4th Edition. I suspect many of the smaller game publishers will not be able to afford/won't want to shell out for that "honor."

But a lot of those companies are going to have to find a new shtick or shrivel up after the supply of 3.5 PHBs/DMGs/etc... runs out. (I'm not talking about the publishers that tend to have their own "d20-based" systems, but rather those that just tend to crank out modules and "add on" books with the 3.5 ruleset).

And maybe that's not a bad thing, entirely. There's a tremendous glut of OGL product out there. Trimming some of the fat probably won't hurt.

Perry Holley

03-24-2008, 11:42 AM

Quite a few, considering they have to pay to "upgrade" to 4th Edition, whereas in 3.5 they could produce stuff in that ruleset for free.Well, technically, the $5000 licensing fee gives a five month "head-start" for publishing OGL stuff for 4th ed... if you pay the fee, you can publish OGL product starting on Aug 1 2008; those who don't pay can start publishing OGL material starting Jan 1 2009.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

Jmacq1

03-24-2008, 05:54 PM

Well, technically, the $5000 licensing fee gives a five month "head-start" for publishing OGL stuff for 4th ed... if you pay the fee, you can publish OGL product starting on Aug 1 2008; those who don't pay can start publishing OGL material starting Jan 1 2009.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

Huh, I didn't know that.

So there is going to be an OGL for 4th Edition. That...surprises me, since I figured 4th Edition was WotC's means of getting away from fuelling their own competition.

mrmike65

05-08-2008, 05:54 AM

[/QUOTE] Which is what seems funny about all this to me: Why put out a 4th edition when there's such a massive amount of product available for 3.5, and you can still make money off of your back catalog of products for that edition?

There just doesn't seem to be any need for a 4th edition right now. Which is why I'm kinda taking this with a grain of salt until an official announcement is made.[/QUOTE]

I've been studying this situation and have come up with a theory. I believe the impetus for the arrival of 4th ed. has been the change in ownership of WOC, Hasbro. It seems to me that 3E was brought designed to "fix" 2E It's funny though that I am unable to find anyone that will say 2E needed "fixing". This leads me to believe that "someone" decided that since 2E was so successful, they needed to change the system in order to push new products.

Let take a moment and give up my gaming credentials. I began playing in 1979 with the boxed Basic edition, then moved to AD&D 1st Ed. Shortly into that I went into the Army and lost touch with D&D until just before 3.0 came out. Unfortunately, I missed 2E, except for two whole sessions. I moved to 3.0 and in the last few months to 3.5

Given the amount if time that I played 2E, I found it confusing and cumbersome. I liked 3E basically because the core mechanic was so simple. No charts, no conversions - just roll a D20, add your bonus for that action, and compare it to a target number. What could be easier? In my mind, D&D was fixed with 3.0

Then somewhere along the line, a change was made and someone failed thier Ethics save. A "gift" was given to the world in the form of the Open Game Liscense, effectively giving anyone who could put 10 words together the opportunity to design a D20 game or game accessory. I believe the real reason behind this "generosity" was to flood the gaming market and overwhelm the D&D community. Oh sure, a LOT of really good d20 stuff hit the shelves and websites. No doubt about it. But think about it, compared to the amount of material sold for 2E, how much 3E/d20 material was WOC profitting from? Not nearly enough.

Enter Hasbo. Enter mainstream gaming. Enter the shift from "roleplaying" to "gaming".

The goal was to create a commercial gaming environment that would streamline global sales. A look at 4E will reveal players using "warbands" instead of characters, playing in tournament-style encounters, rather than adventures, and having access to powergaming skills, feats and class abilities. A classy move back to wargaming - the very roots of D&D. Folks, this is a move back not forward.

What made all this possible was the fact that the new generation of players were being pulled from thier video games. The market was ripe with players who had short attention spans and were raised on instant gratification. The gaming industry was competing with electronic entertainment, they thought they needed to speed things up in order to increase sales.

So, 3E was released to "fix" D&D. It was a modest move to regain market viability. I can accept that. Then someone got greedy and the plan for 4E was developed. But how do you fix a "fix"? Answer: break it. So came the OGL and the flood of d20 material into the world. This was just setting the stage. The real "hammer" was 3.5. This was the instrument of destruction. It threw D&D off-balance and made it too powerful. Like moving from smoking pot to smoking crack. Add the RPGA - a nation-wide gaming forum centered around tournament-style gaming, with national rankings for DM & players - and the stage was set for 4E

"4E" - fast, furious & powerful. "4E" - impersonal, unimaginative. Everything your character can do is in the books. The rule system just doesn't support creative solutions and custom actions. Oh, it doesn't prohbit them, it just doesn't give any room for them. It's like a video game on paper. and it kills the imagination and free will.

I, for one, will never purchase or use 4E materials. I'm even planning to remove 3.5 materials from my table. I don't need them and if you prefer "roleplaying" to "gaming" you don't need them either. The Prestige Class was the scalpel that made the first inscision to separate you from your imagination. They made it seem that you couldn't customize your character without them. "why work at using your imagination when you can use our handy-dandy Prestige Classes?" = "why worry about your lousy life when you can just smoke some of this and get high".

Now, if you prefer "gaming" to "roleplaying" , then I guess that's your choice. I'm sure it will be fun. Just remember to enjoy the high life while it lasts.

Ok, I've thrown the gauntlet, so let's hear your thoughts on all this :o)

Jmacq1

05-08-2008, 11:57 AM

Did you get an advance copy of 4E or something?

And of course, the very easy answer for 90 percent of your complaints is: Not all imaginations are created equal.

mrmike65

05-08-2008, 07:53 PM

No, but all the preview publications they've been putting out give a pretty good view of what's to come.

Did you get an advance copy of 4E or something?

And of course, the very easy answer for 90 percent of your complaints is: Not all imaginations are created equal.

boshobosho

05-09-2008, 03:06 AM

I don't "Roleplay"
I'm one of those odd people who buys sourcebooks and just reads them for the fun of it.
But what is being done with 4E sounds wrong. Of course a company would believe they need to compete with electronic media but there is such a thing as a niche market. Plus, make your own electronic media to compete on that front, and keep your original product true.

Jmacq1

05-09-2008, 11:04 AM

mrmike65

05-10-2008, 06:15 PM

I dunno. D&D has never (to me) really been all that much about "roleplaying" unless your DM and fellow players make it so. I don't imagine 4E will be any different on that score.

If you want to "role play" you can do it with virtually any ruleset, because most of the actual role-playing takes place in the scenes that aren't well-covered by most rulesets, or at least the spaces in-between the fight scenes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, you can roleplay with virtually any ruleset. The problem is that the recent evolution of D&D moves it further away from being a system that you can roleplay with. D&D has thrived for so many years for the very reason that it has engaged and encouraged the imagination of thousands of players. I feel there is an obligation to uphold that ideal and legacy.

Granted the combat scenes can be some of the more exciting parts of an adventure, but they do not make up the whole adventure. The scenes between the combats are vital to supporting the glitz. Consider the scene where Frodo meets Galadriel at the fountain of scrying... or where Boromir tries to persuade Frodo to give him the ring... or the one in the Prancing Pony where Frodo ends up disappearing in front of a whole tavern full of people... or when Merry and Pippen meet the Treebeard. Take all the non-combat scenes from the three Lord of the Rings movies and what do you have left? Really cool battles with little substance or relevance.

The evolution of D&D has moved away from supporting the whole adventure and focuses on the glitz. In doing so, there is no room for the roleplaying scenes that tie the adventure together. In it's rush to retain commercial longevity, Wizards fails to provide an environment that allows the veteran players the space to teach the new generation about roleplaying.

Perry Holley

05-11-2008, 11:40 AM

Granted the combat scenes can be some of the more exciting parts of an adventure, but they do not make up the whole adventure. The scenes between the combats are vital to supporting the glitz. Consider the scene where Frodo meets Galadriel at the fountain of scrying... or where Boromir tries to persuade Frodo to give him the ring... or the one in the Prancing Pony where Frodo ends up disappearing in front of a whole tavern full of people... or when Merry and Pippen meet the Treebeard. Take all the non-combat scenes from the three Lord of the Rings movies and what do you have left? Really cool battles with little substance or relevance.Out of curiousity, how would the new ruleset prevent or discourage players from playing out the type of scenes that you describe?

Jmacq1

05-12-2008, 06:02 AM

Out of curiousity, how would the new ruleset prevent or discourage players from playing out the type of scenes that you describe?

Exactly.....

D&D has pretty much always been a "fantasy combat game" with a few tidbits thrown in for things outside of combat (Alignments, some spells, skill listings).

Doesn't matter which edition, it all basically boils down to: "Here's the rules for how to fight, and some other stuff for crawling through dungeons and whatnot, and some environmental effects and stuff. Oh, and here's the skill listings/Non-Weapon Proficiencies for stuff they can do besides fight."

As I said, the "role playing" comes between DM and players. It's not really an explicit function of the rules (though you can role-play within those rules). Unless there's some explicit rule in D&D 4th Edition that says "You can't do anything but run battle scenes with this game" (Which I highly doubt), there's absolutely nothing in the new edition of D&D that detracts from role-playing. No more so than there was in any other edition.

DungeonmasterJim

05-12-2008, 06:33 AM

I played some 4th ed scenarios at a gaming con this past March and mostly I liked what I saw of 4th ed. Saving throws are kind of weird since you have a 50/50 chance of making them. It was more about hitting a Fortitude armor class by your opponent for lack of a better term.

I liked that anyone can 'second wind' and get some hit points back so that clerics don't have to be band-aids or possibly totally screw the party over.

You start off with a lot more hitpoints and combat skills at first level but it seemed like hits were easy to come by. If I didn't know better it seemed like over all 150 points of damage had been dealt by everyone altogether in a low level combat. I wasn't use to that at all.

I couldn't determine it from the scenarios but it seems like halflings are now normally around 4 feet tall or something like that from the rumor mill. I find that very disappointing. But like I said, I couldn't really tell from the preview play.

I do find rules changes to be very annoying and everyone has their own interpetation and that will always cause trouble in games like D&D. The biggest thing I'm liking about 4th ed is that Forgotten Realms will be the base universe for it. I always found Forgotten Realms more enjoyable a setting than Greyhawk but that's just my opinion.

I'm hoping to get a good does of 4th ed at Dragon Con this year.

DM Jim

Jmacq1

05-12-2008, 08:44 AM

Heh, yeah, I know very few people that really use Greyhawk as a campaign setting, even in 3.0/3.5 edition.

Forgotten Realms has just had so much more stuff published for it and been fleshed out so much more deeply that it makes sense to make it the default setting.

Though I'm almost surprised they didn't go with Eberron, as hard as they've pushed that particular setting.

Perry Holley

05-12-2008, 09:16 AM

It's not that certain rulesets can't be more encouraging of role-play than others. But even the most rule-crunchy, combat-intensive ruleset can be still be used for lots of roleplay if the players and GM are so inclined, and systems that are supposedly inclined to encourage heavy roleplay can still be used for nothing more than a hackfest, if that's what a gaming group wants to use it for.

As one person on another gaming forum who played with Gygax before the OD&D rules were published once commented (paraphrasing), "We didn't have rules for roleplaying. We just did it."

There's a lot of stuff I've seen about 4E that looks like it won't appeal to me, but the lack of rules concerning PC's emotional struggles and deep multi-hour non-combat discussions with NPCs isn't a factor for me.

Astonishing X-Fan

05-12-2008, 12:17 PM

I don't get the whole "D&D is downplaying roleplaying" thing. The rulebooks contain mostly rules for combat and combat-related mechanics. And that's what they SHOULD contain. You don't need many rules for non-combat situations. And the D20 system makes things extremely easy to just make up rules on the fly for any situation. 3rd Edition D&D is awesome because the rules are simple yet flexible and can be applied to pretty much any kind of action you want to do, in or out of combat. As long as 4th edition keeps this(and it looks like it will), then I've got no beef with it.

Perry Holley

05-14-2008, 05:59 PM

Heh heh heh...

http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05062008.shtml

Jared_Humpherys

05-15-2008, 05:32 AM

Screw 4.0, I'm gonna go with Pathfinder.

I mean, seriously WotC, toggles? Why do you want to make this WoW?

Jmacq1

05-15-2008, 05:42 AM

Screw 4.0, I'm gonna go with Pathfinder.

I mean, seriously WotC, toggles? Why do you want to make this WoW?

Oh, I dunno...probably because WoW has probably made as much money in the last few years as D&D has made across its entire existence? :tongue:

(I have no idea if that's true, but I do know WoW has made a crapload of money).

Jared_Humpherys

05-15-2008, 06:14 AM

Oh, I dunno...probably because WoW has probably made as much money in the last few years as D&D has made across its entire existence? :tongue:

(I have no idea if that's true, but I do know WoW has made a crapload of money).

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's a money thing.

For me, the mistakes they're making in 4.0 are legion:

1) Firing all the 3.0 and 4.0 people(which is why Monte Cook and Bruce Cordell are headed to Pathfinder! Ha!).

2) Telling us to throw out all the old books(while Pathfinder doesn't invalidate a single one).

3) Keeping half of the content of their books online, and charging a monthly fee for it.

4) Letting old properties slide(Fire Eye instead of Beholder, now. WotC let it slide. Good news is, Pathfinder picked it up).

5) Throwing out Greyhawk.

6) Making the game non-stop combat, and apeing WoW at every turn(look at the art, even! It's almost identical!)

7) Trying to kill the OGL(the worst of the offenses, in my opinion).

Yeah, I'm not gonna bother with 4.0 at all.

Jmacq1

05-15-2008, 07:24 AM

Uhm, pretty sure there's still an OGL in place for 4.0, at least according to earlier posters.

Alex

05-20-2008, 01:38 AM

Screw 4.0, I'm gonna go with Pathfinder.

I mean, seriously WotC, toggles? Why do you want to make this WoW?

Since im a big WoW guy, and a lot of people in my guild are current or former D and D people, i can confirm that theres little to no buzz around the new D and D rule set. I've never been able to get into the game myself, as i have never really met anyone offline who plays it, and you kinda need other people to play it, but lets not kid around. WoW is about grinding and getting gear, D and D is about interacting with other people, no matter how much they change it or how self sustaining they make the characters you can create, it's not going to bring in the same people.

And as i see it, thats a huge flaw in the idea of trying to make a pen and paper rpg and turning it into some kind of mmoish thing. All they seem to be doing is alienating some current people who enjoy D and D, and they aren't really doing anything that's going to add people to it. We don't roleplay in WoW for craps sake, we click buttons.

Jmacq1

05-20-2008, 11:49 AM

Well yeah....regardless of what happens with 4.0 and its' ruleset and what it contains, I'm pretty sure most D&D players were of the mind that it was an unnecessary revision in the first place (myself included, even if I plan on checking the new system out).

Jared_Humpherys

05-20-2008, 01:58 PM

Uhm, pretty sure there's still an OGL in place for 4.0, at least according to earlier posters.

Except that one has to pay $5000 for it.

Jmacq1

05-20-2008, 03:27 PM

Except that one has to pay $5000 for it.

No, that was what I thought, too, but if you look several posts up, it appears that the $5000 dollar fee was only for those developers that wanted a five month "head start" on creating 4.0 material (thus allowing them to have product on shelves shortly after the new rulebooks are released). Once the game is released it appears that the regular OGL rules go into effect on January 1st, 2009.

EDIT: Here's the quote -

Well, technically, the $5000 licensing fee gives a five month "head-start" for publishing OGL stuff for 4th ed... if you pay the fee, you can publish OGL product starting on Aug 1 2008; those who don't pay can start publishing OGL material starting Jan 1 2009.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

Somehow....I expect a whole lotta OGL 4.0 stuff will be hitting in January 2009......

Jared_Humpherys

05-20-2008, 03:41 PM

No, that was what I thought, too, but if you look several posts up, it appears that the $5000 dollar fee was only for those developers that wanted a five month "head start" on creating 4.0 material (thus allowing them to have product on shelves shortly after the new rulebooks are released). Once the game is released it appears that the regular OGL rules go into effect on January 1st, 2009.

EDIT: Here's the quote -

Somehow....I expect a whole lotta OGL 4.0 stuff will be hitting in January 2009......

Well, huh. Seems like I was mistaken. Thanks for pointing that out.

Could anyone also explain to me what exactly is happening to the d20 liscense? Is it still going away for good on June 6th?

Perry Holley

05-20-2008, 04:32 PM

I don't have a link handy, but I *think* the 5K fee was later waived.

I'll see if I can find something to verify that.

Jmacq1

05-21-2008, 05:21 AM

Well, huh. Seems like I was mistaken. Thanks for pointing that out.

Could anyone also explain to me what exactly is happening to the d20 liscense? Is it still going away for good on June 6th?

I thought the d20 license was good forever. Or was that just OGL?

Biggest problem being that all those publishers that relied on "you must have the D&D 3/3.5 Edition Player's Handbook to use this product" are kinda out of luck.

But presumably, those folks that basically produced complete rulesets in their books should be fine, if they wanted to keep using the old system.

Kage Kisaragi

05-22-2008, 12:54 AM

Sounds like a lot of you are either jaded, misinformed, or just plain crazy. Okay, you want to continue playing 3.x because you believe it is the roxxors and allows me to do everything I could ever imagine. Let's examine that everything you can ever imagine aspect first.

Let's look at all the problems with 3.x and thus in comparison Pathfinder as it will try to continue on by building off of 3.x. :rolleyes:

1.) 50+ base classes over 400+ PrCs.. now how many of each of those were entirely original or new concepts? ... believe it or not not even 20% I think. This is not a plus people its a crazy shame, a sick sad joke on that idea that YOU the player can't even imagine outside of a picture and some fluffy words that another character could be conceptually be built using a pre-existing class with